Is illness only evident when named?

I know of no sickness that only can be perceived when named.

The Tuberculosis patient coughing up blood doesn't need to say that they're sick to be evaluated and found to be sick.

Heck, someone could say, "I'm tubercular," and be found to be in error.

With ~~witch~~ ~~doctory~~ Psychology it is more difficult. The Rosenhan Experiment established that all it took was the diagnosis. After that nonexistent symptoms would be "observed" which would turn the diagnosis into a self-affirming one.

So if I say you're paranoid, you're paranoid. If I say you're depressed, you're depressed.

But the real key for us is that absent of the label; we are not seen as sick. Your friends, neighbors, coworkers and doctors see nothing wrong. This is not due to a massive societal conspiracy to see a mental illness and pretend that its not there. Its because there is no illness there.

And for the people who don't accept a label as a pathology; even saying that you're a Pedo doesn't change their evaluation of your sanity.

Heck, a former AGF actually forgot I had come out to her. That's just how "evident" my mental illness was. ;p

So if you're sane, stable, trustworthy and reliable until you're outed, then you aren't sick; just labeled as such.

In the Soviet Union, advocating for a two-party system was a mental illness. And until 1973 so was Homosexuality. And there too nobody but queers and a few allies said otherwise. But they were stable too for anyone who wasn't diagnosing by looking at a label.

Dante